Oblivion talk:Useful Spells/Archive 2

This is an archive of past Oblivion talk:Useful Spells discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page, except for maintenance such as updating links.

Too Many First Person Comments

I'm still deleting spells and additions that have comments in the first person; "I would make it 100 points fire damage" or "I made it this way when I had 100 in destruction and I could take out town guards" etc. I'm going to add a specific point about this in the guidelines, I know they should know this already if they are going to make additions however I think this is worth repeating. Grandmaster z0b 21:43, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Armor of Oblivion

To whoever made the armor of Oblivion spell, just saying i cleaned it up a little, by sorting out the Links and changing the Bound Sword (Wich is 2 handed) to a bound dagger, so that you can also use a bound shield. Hope you dont mind! P.S its a cool spell!--Willyhead 09:38, 10 June 2007 (EDT)

Isn't Armor of Oblivion just the Superior Bound Armor spell added by the Spell Tomes plugin with summon weapon and shield effects added? Xeagle51 23:27, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Aye, but many users do not have the spell tomes plugin, so im sure they'll find it usefull.--Willyhead 12:23, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

Weakness + Damage

I don't think weakness + damage in the same spell will work. Can anyone corroborate? — Unsigned comment by 76.99.68.190 (talk)

Yes you're right, you would have to cast the weakness first for the effect to work--Willyhead 04:00, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

You are right, but if you keep casting the spell over and over again the weeknees will take effect on the second time you cast — Unsigned comment by 99.240.23.169 (talk) on 29 February 2008

Cleaning up - Another Attempt

I've posted a section over at the Community Portal on one possible idea for cleanup up this page. Please take a look and let me have your feedback or ideas. Apologies for spamming this around but I felt it should appear on the talk pages of all the articles I mentioned in the post. --Rpeh^Talk 06:30, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

SORRY!

Sorry about my prepatch spells, I modified the disclaimer saying no prepatch as that had NOT been stated. Also there are other prepatch spells there we should remove for consistency's sake. There are prepatch players, and they would like access to useful spells that arent being allowed. (lol its like a crime to use these spells we have to hide them away! Black market spells! Can't find any info on those...) These arent cheats btw just exploits of the system. — Unsigned comment by 71.74.168.206 (talk) on 23 July 2007

Defensive/Offensive

I think that the 'Skill enhancing spells' and 'fun spells' sections are confusing and unnecessary, and they should be deleted- the spells originally documented under them should be moved to either Offensive or Defensive. If a spell has an offensive and defensive effect the spell should most likely be moved to offensive because that comes first. So why not just have too areas on the Page - Offensive Defensive, it is more simple and easier to document, anybody agree?--Willyhead 10:05, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

I think you know my opinion, but I wouldn't do that just yet. Hopefully a consensus will emerge shortly on that page and we can turn our attentions to the detail. --Rpeh^Talk 06:59, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

Here's a little layout I have done- I have deleted any spells I think are redundant or Un-original and documented the spells in simple Offensive/Defensive categories- It's on my sandbox.--Willyhead 09:39, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

please dont delete them they are useful for players who bought oblivion 4 fun!

-Halopedia member,-

SpartanG007 — Unsigned comment by 212.70.205.52 (talk) on 26 October 2007

Fortify Magicka Exploit

I've made the spells that use fortify magicka, such as Perpetual Shadow of the Vampire and Chain Heal. Chain Heal works fine and I never run out of magicka, but PSotV never works. I created it just like it was written on this page but my magicka always runs out. I've tried other variations using different offensive effects, but they never work. Does the fortify bug only work for Restore Healh spells, or is my unpatched Xbox360 just bugged in a strange and uncomprehendable way? Could someone else verify that PSotV actually works, because this oddment has bugged me for a while and PSotV sounds like a very attractive spell for regular use. 70.246.28.192 20:13, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

Check and make sure that the cost of your PSofV spell is not more than half of 100 * your spell effectiveness. If it is more than that amount, then you are likely running out of magicka. Another possibility (though I am unclear about this) is that if your Luck is below 50 (check as it could have been damaged by some attacks) then it affects a lot of things in the game including your effective skill levels and hence the spell costs. — Unsigned comment by 76.208.148.56 (talk) on 6 November 2007

Preposed deletion of Paralyzing Fear

I edited the spell to actualy list posible values. 200 burden can't be acheved with just one spell. As the burden spell page sugests this spell even at the value origanaly described is not effective. The author then goes to sugest that the spell Paralyze is in fact better than his spell. Makeing burden + demoralize for x seconds < Paralyze for x seconds. I don't feel burden is a useful status effect in spell form due to the low maximum value of the spell. I feel this spell misleads readers into bleiving the spell has an actual chance to work. — Unsigned comment by 207.47.16.34 (talk) on 16 November 2007

I agree; it's been deleted. --Nephele^Talk 15:06, 22 November 2007 (EST)

excuse me but the spell can work you just change the burden effect to 100 and add drain/damage strength to make a total of 200 or more — Unsigned comment by 166.70.14.62 (talk) on 2 June 2008

Fortify Magicka Exploit explained

Inspired by the 'chain heal' spell I made my own little 'chain destruct' spell, fortify magicka 100pts for 3 s+11pts fire damage+20pts damage fatigue for the cost of 49 magicka. The spell is more 'proof of concept' than useful but it works. As long as the fortify magicka effect never runs out you can hurl fire at your enemies until your fingers hurt(just like the chain heal spell).

Incidentally I also think I figured out exactly *why* the fortify magicka exploit works...First consider the following two statements:

1)Spells can not stack on themself.
2)An expired fortify magicka effect will never drop your magicka below zero.

I am certain statement 1 is true, statement 2 is true at least for fortify magicka effect from spells(haven't tested the effect from items and potions yet but fortify magicka item opens up a possible new avenue for exploits). Here is how I think the game engine handle the chain heal spell situation:

First it does the usual check to see if you are allowed to cast the spell (considering silence effects, your mastery level, you magicka pool(at51) etc), once you get the 'go', things become interesting.
As spells can not stack on themself, the fortify magicka for 100pts go away, dropping your magicka pool to zero(and not to -49 like one should expect)
The cost of the spell gets deducted(-49)
The renewed fortify magicka(+100) kicks in, bringing you back to where you started with 51 magicka in the pool. Bongo 10:15, 10 December 2007 (EST)

Just an idea, but could fortify intellegence also cause the same thing. I was hoping I could combine them as fortify intellegence increases your maximum magicka by 2 so if I used fortify magicka and fortify intellegence so I could I raise the total spell cost to 150 then? — Unsigned comment by 99.240.23.169 (talk) on 29 February 2008

Yes, you could make it 150 if you introduce Fortify Intelligence. Although things gets messy when you start to swap spells (ie, from damage spell to a heal) (I've worked most of it out though, check my advanced chain spells). Exoclyps 22:08, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

Strange Spell

Anyone seen that vid where some dude made a spell called NUKE EM' with... fire damage 99999999 pts on target frost damage 99999999 pts on target and shock damage 99999999 pts on target? only on PC BTW it costed 1 magica an 5 gold — Unsigned comment by Bobjim (talk • contribs) on 5 March 2008

Yeah, I saw the vid. Dagoth Ur, Mad God (talk· contribs· email)

Page Splitting

This page is now at the point in which svaing any changes takes several minutes. Should we split this page into spell type/purpose subsections? --HMSVictory 10:00, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

Provoke

How is the Weakness to Fire 3% for 1 second with area 100 really useful? — Unsigned comment by Mystic (talk • contribs) on 15 April 2008

As explained in the spell. Also I'd like to add that it'd be a nice spell to use when you got some powerfull aoe spells just to gather all the monsters up. — Unsigned comment by Exoclyps (talk • contribs) on 25 April}

I think it is a really useful spell to get enemies to come to me — Unsigned comment by Tabloes (talk • contribs) on 6 May 2008

Advanced Chain Spells

Added 3 Advanced Chain Spells that includes "Fortify Intelligence" in them. I've yet to figure out 100% how the Magicka gain/loss on it works. But I've managed to optimize things in my examples atleast. Take a look at them and say what you think. I belive they are a worthwhille addition and at the size I presented they are actually really powerfull spells to use as well.

Exoclyps 22:06, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

MageBane

I'm unsure what to do with the MageBane spell, as we don't have enough info on Dispel to know for sure that this will work for all people in all instances...or so it would appear from the description of Dispel. Does anybody have any thoughts on this? Maybe add a note to the spell that it might need fine-tuning? --Robin Hood (Talk • E-mail • Contribs) 15:38, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

Another attempt at a cleanup

I think there are too many spells on this page. Especially because alot of spells aren't that effective. I reviewed the list, and I made for each my own judgement call whether the spell should stay, be deleted or to be moved to the Fun Spells section (Splitting that one is another discussion).
Basically I asked myself these four questions:

Is the spell cost effective? Does it cost much Magicka and does it require a too high skill proficiency?
Is the spell not too obvious? Simply combining a few similar effects is.
Is the spell there only for Roleplaying reasons? Too many are possible to list them all here.
Is the spell not already covered somewhere else?

The list:

Spell name	Proposal	Reason
Armor of Oblivion	Delete	Obvious, just combining most Bound Armor effects. Too expensive for its effect.
Atronach Shield	Delete	Combining multiple same-purpose effects is already covered on Spell Making. No need to cover all examples.
Chain Heal	Keep	Combining a spell effect with Fortify Magicka is not that obvious, but quite useful.
Hide in Plain Sight	Keep	A game mechanic that is not obvious. Exploiting it seems useful.
Holy Shield	Delete	Too expensive, requires Master perk. Spell is just a combination of two powerful effects.
Iron Skin	Delete	Just combining powerful effects is not enough.
MageBane	Delete	Doesn't explain the usefulness of the Dispel effect, it looks like ordinary Silence spell otherwise.
Minor Gift Of The Mage	Delete	Description doesn't explain why it is useful to combine these particular effects, they seem to be random.
Retribution	Delete	Too expensive, requires Master perk. Spell is just a combination of two powerful effects.
Shroud	Keep	Description explains why it is necessary to have all the effects to attempt what is described.
Thief's Insight	Delete	Too expensive, requires Master perk. Spell is just a combination of few effects that don't really add up. Detect Life visual cue is harder to see with Night-Eye anyway.
Treacherous Decoy	Delete	Already covered in more detail by Shroud.
Undersea Exploration	Keep	Description should be improved. Detect Life is not really necessary, and Fortify spells are just extra. The spell can stay if it explains that Night-Eye helps improve your sight underwater a bit.
A Victim's Revenge	Delete	It does not seem effective. The benefit of the Fortify Magicka effect is already explained in Chain Heal.
Asphyxia	Delete	Spell's benefit comes from Spell Stacking, which is already covered on Spell Making.
Assassin's Creed	Delete	Spell's benefit comes from Spell Stacking, which is already covered on Spell Making.
Banish	Delete	Too expensive, requires Master perk. Spell does not add anything significant to the Paralyze effect.
Breach1/Breach2	Delete	Spell's benefit comes from Spell Stacking, which is already covered on Spell Making.
Chain Destroy	Keep	This can serve as a good example of combining weakness effects with damage effects.
Death Knell	Delete	This is already covered by Drain Health.
Death Knell Ultimate	Delete	Spell's benefit comes from Spell Stacking, which is already covered on Spell Making.
Death Sentence	Keep	It could be helpful in the case that the player is low on health, but needs to finish off the enemy. The idea of making your summons benefit from an already weakened enemy is not that obvious.
Disarm	Keep	Although not that useful, it is also not very obvious and it is cheap to cast.
Execution	Delete	Just combining similar effects is already covered on Spell Making, and it is quite obvious.
Freeze	Delete	Spell seems to be from a Roleplaying motive, this is not very useful.
Hallucination	Merge	Merge this spell with Death Sentence?
Headshot	Keep	The description could also cover sneak attacks in general, but Marksman seems the most effective example. Enhancing just your sneak attacks seems useful enough.
Heart Attack		Move to Fun Spells? The spell doesn't seem very useful, but the description promises a hilarious effect.
Hellflame/Hellfrost/Hellshock	Keep	It is reasonable that Useful Spells should cover at least one spell that combines a damaging effect with Soul Trap. Perhaps a note that this saves some work when filling Soul Gems with souls of summoned creatures?
Holybolt	Keep	Damaging an enemy while it won't attack you is generally useful. This spell is a good example.
Hyper Absorb	Keep	This is really expensive, requires Master perk, but perhaps it is useful. Is it really worth the cost?
InvisiShots	Delete	The spell promises to be effective in helping your Magicka recharge, but it seems like the spell itself costs alot. Also, is this not more effective when split?
Kaboom	Delete	Combining Soul Trap with damage effects is already covered at Hellflame/Hellfrost/Hellshock.
Lingering Chill	Move	Move to Fun Spells. Spell is too expensive. But the idea of a lingering Frost effect is not obvious to most players.
Netherstrike	Delete	Combining Soul Trap with damage effects is already covered. The other effects don't seem to add anything really useful.
One-Two-Punch	Delete	This spell just combines a few similar effects. Also Paralyze for 10s is expensive, requires Master perk.
Perpetual Shadow of Vampire	Keep	One example that combines an offensive effect with Invisibility seems reasonable. I just wonder that this is not the most effective application.
Provoke	Keep	The idea of luring enemies towards you seems useful enough.
Scorpion Bite	Delete	Very expensive, there are far better ways to kill if you happen to have that much magicka.
Sleep	Delete	The effect of a low Fatigue is already covered on Fatigue.
Stun	Keep	If it works as promised, this combination adds something to an ordinary Paralyze (pushing back the enemy).
Touch of Corrosion	Delete	Description doesn't explain the usefulness of combining these two particular effects.
Touch of Death	Delete	The spell is just a combination of similar effects. Too obvious.
Uppercut	Keep	Having one example of combining damage spells with Paralyze seems reasonable. Also, this spell is not so expensive.
Vampiric Spell Set	Delete	These spells seem to come from a Roleplaying motive and are either not effective, or already mentioned somewhere else.
Weapon Erosion	Delete	This spell is too expensive to be really useful.
Wind of Destruction	Delete	The spell is just a combination of similar effects. Too obvious.
Apprentice's Spells	Delete	According to the guidelines, spells that use an exploit that was fixed by a patch should not be covered.
Armorer Training	Delete	This is already covered on Armorer.
Blade Mastery	Delete	Already covered by Headshot.
Blessing of the Gray Fox	Keep	This seems to be useful enough if you are aiming to steal a few single items.
Blessing of Sithis	Delete	The "awesome" damage bonus is just the regular Sneak attack bonus.
Casanova	Delete	Already covered on Charm.
Emergency Magicka	Keep	Although using Fortify Magicka to regain magicka is already mentioned, having a seperate entry for it seems reasonable.
Fence	Keep	Although indirectly covered by Charm, it might be useful to mention the full combination here as well.
Fighter's Blessing	Delete	This spell seems to come from a Roleplaying motive, and it does not seem useful.
Fortify Magic Skill	Keep	Perhaps a bit obvious, but it is a good idea to explain the major benefit that is promised in the description.
Human Freight Train	Delete	Already covered on Feather.
Open Very Hard Lock	Delete	Just because a version with this magnitude does not exist with the standard spells is no reason to cover it here.
Rapid Shot	Keep	The exploit described here seems hard to manage, but it does promise a nice damage bonus.
Recursive Energies	Delete	The spell is not as effective as promised in the description.
Remedial Training	Keep	It seems to safe you quite a bit of money if the spell works as promised in its description.
Rocket Pack	Delete	This spell is nothing new. It simply explains the benefit of Fortify Speed.
Smith	Delete	Already covered on Armorer.
Speed Steed	Delete	Already covered on Horses.
Stealth Steed	Delete	Already covered on Horses.
Super Horse	Delete	Already covered on Horses.
Sweet-Talk	Keep	Unlike Casanova, this spell actually covers a peculiar effect of Dispositions and low Personality.
Tap	Delete	Already covered by Emergency Magicka.
Unlock	Keep	Perhaps, because the benefit explained by this spell is not explicitely covered on Fortify Skill.

I'd like to hear any comments on this list. But the idea is to remove all spells that are marked for deletion. --Timenn < talk > 08:43, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

That's a tremendous bit of work and should prove invaluable in improving what could be a very useful page. I've had a quick glance through and the ones you're proposing for deletion look like they're fairly useless. I'll look in more detail later but I can't imagine any of them being changed to Keep. –Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 08:54, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, having read through that again I can't argue with any of them - and I'd agree that "Heart Attack" should go in with "fun spells". I think several spells will benefit from more detailed notes after the page is cleaned up, but that becomes possible when the page is much smaller. Once the job is done there should also be more information in the notes at the top of the page to discourage some of the same things being re-added. –Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 11:47, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

Here are my thoughts on a couple of the spells. Changes to the Keep/Delete are in bold; others are just comments.

Spell name	Proposal	Reason
MageBane	See -->	I believe the Dispel effect was to get rid of any buffs, while leaving it just weak enough not to counter its own Silence. Perhaps just add a better description? If the Dispel doesn't do much against most enemies (e.g., if buffs aren't common, or normally not this weak) then delete.
Undersea Exploration	Keep	Detect Life effect can be useful to spot enemies underwater; otherwise, with the decreased contrast inherent to the environment, some things can be hard to spot.
A Victim's Revenge	Keep	While similar to Chain Heal, as you indicate, also demonstrates the potential offensive uses of the technique. I find the idea of a Drain Health effect to be particularly useful in this context. Granted, Chain Destroy also covers offensive uses, but I think the three different styles are warranted. Perhaps even group all three under a "Chain Spell" heading, with all three as examples?
Chain Explosion (Advanced)	Delete	You missed this one. I'd delete it, but keep the extra note about the +1 effect with Chain Destroy.
Freeze	Delete	Tend to agree with the "Delete", but might have a place under Fun Spells.
Hallucination	Merge	Agreed...like the Chain suggestion, this would benefit from a "concept description" along with a few examples.
Heart Attack	Move	Agreed. Looks somewhat useful in its own right, but probably better placed under Fun Spells.
Hyper Absorb	Delete	Seems like a fairly obvious use of ranged Absorb spells and can easily be catered to any strength. Perhaps just move the example to the Absorb Magicka page?
Lingering Chill	Move	Maybe make a fifth major header for "Miscellaneous Spells" and move this (and possibly others) there? It's not particularly "fun" per se.
Blessing of the Gray Fox	Keep	Expand second spell to a full-fledged spell under the same heading so people don't miss it.
Emergency Magicka	Move	I'd just move this example to the Fortify Magicka page, if there isn't one there already.
Fence	Keep	If this actually allows you to invest in a shop before you become an Expert, it's a very useful spell indeed!
Human Freight Train	Keep	I'd be tempted to keep this here, simply because most people (like me) figure they already know what Feather does, so why bother to read the description? It's also a good idea to keep one or two examples of spell stacking, so people who haven't come across the idea will get pointed in the right direction.
Rapid Shot	Maybe delete	Useful, but I'm of two minds about it, since it is clearly an exploit.
Remedial Training	Keep	The spell does indeed work as promised, and I know I've seen this mentioned in other places, but is good to keep here.
Travel Pass	Ambivalent	You missed this one. While it's a fairly simple concept, it's a very cheap method of carrying a lot of loot. Then again, I consider this to be an exploit of the Fast Travel system, so might also qualify for deletion.
Unlock	Keep	The only reason I'd say to keep it is because of the underwater effect. Might also be brought up on any pages discussing the limitations of being underwater (don't know specifically what we have).

--Robin Hood (Talk • E-mail • Contribs) 12:23, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

Should we cover spells that are exploits yes or no? For me it depends on what the exploit is. If it takes advantage of unexpected game behaviour, like the duplication glitch, then I'd say not to cover the spell. It's possible a future patch will fix it, and it's generally considered to be cheating. Exploits that benefit from certain game mechanics, like taking advantage of pause in spell durations during dialogue, should stay. While it may not have been intended to be exploited, they were a choice by the game developers.

This is my response to yours, the spells I left out I agree with you on:

Spell name	Proposal	Reason
MageBane	Delete	Dispel other is usually not required, as the most powerful effects are either by Ability, or too strong to Dispel with this spell. I just don't think it's useful.
A Victim's Revenge	Merge	I think it's best to put all this under one header. A Chain prefix seems better than this spell's name.
Human Freight Train	Delete	It applies to more that multiple spells with different names, but the same effects, can be stacked. I think this can be covered better by Spell Making. Else, all kinds of spell collections can be added to this page.
Rapid Shot	Delete	According to my own reasoning this spell should be deleted. It sounds too much like a glitch to me. It relies on how the design was implemented, and not on the design of the game itself.
Travel Pass	Keep	It exploits a game mechanic, not a glitch. I think it should stay because of this.

Another idea is to rename the Fun Spells sections to something like Peculiar Spells to cover the spells than are not necessarily funny, but reveal some less obvious game mechanics. After the main sections are cleaned up, this section must be cleaned up as well. --Timenn < talk > 11:42, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

The change is done for the regular spells. I've added a few new guidelines and tweaked the description. Please let me know your thoughts. I think this page is more useful now, and easier to patrol. --Timenn < talk > 10:19, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Murder Made Legal

I'm not at home right now, so I can't test this, but would it be possible to create a spell that frenzies and damages at the same time, to kill somebody 'legally' without having to cast two spells? 203.164.5.56 04:08, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

Technically you attacked them since you caused them damage. Figgy 04:10, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

Okay, I get it. It'd be great if you could delay effects on spells in TES5. 122.109.34.3 14:20, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

MageBane explained

The purpose of MageBane is to destroy an enemies spell and then stop them from just doing it again straight away like they normally do Tabloes

Secs, pts, and ft

There seems to be some effort on Timenn's part to harmonize the various abbreviations and so forth. It looks awkward to me to have no space between the number and the units, but it has the advantage that it'll never get split up by small window sizes. But at the same time, the "x sec" has a space cuz let's face it, "xsec" or even "Xsec" would just look weird. It's easy to cut & paste this to & from a word processor and harmonize everything...any thoughts on what we harmonize it to? --Robin Hood (Talk • E-mail • Contribs) 10:16, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Sorry, this is just a habit I picked up when first looking at examples on other pages. Your comment made me check how the game displays the spell effects:

<Effect> x pts in y ft for z secs on Self/Touch/Target

So you're right about the spaces between the units and the values. Note that if the time value is 1, the unit is simply sec (instead of the plural).

As for preventing the linebreaks, let's use html's non-breaking-space ( ) for its original purpose! --Timenn < talk > 12:09, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Unexplained page wrecking!

How could someone delete so many spells without first listening to the creaters appeals! im sure if u asked to creaters of these deleted spells(Like me) you would find out how our spells work but instead u think ur amazin an delete them!!! next time dont delete without hearin peoples appeals to how they work if u cant read to understand how they work! P.S im not moaning just saying that was a very sudden change deleting alot of good spells!!! — Unsigned comment by Tabloes (talk • contribs) on 13 June 2008

Actually if you scroll a bit upwards on this talk page you can see the entire list of spells that were deleted or not. The reasons have been provided, and since the 2,5 week the list was there no editor has objected. Instead, some editors posted positive about the idea.

As you may have noticed, the article listed 76 spells in the end! Several spells were duplicates, others were so expensive you could hardly call them useful. Again, for all the reasons, see above. This way, no one could recognize the actually useful spells from the list, there were just too many.

I'm sorry if you feel spells have been deleted that should have stayed. Contacting every contributor of an article is an impossible job, if you check the history you can see how many people that were. And tracking what each contributor added is even a more impossible job. Instead editors use the talk page of an article for this sort of thing.

However, nothing is ever lost on a wiki, and spells can still be restored.

On a final note, spell descriptions should clearly explain how the spell works and why it is useful. Once only the useful spells remain, the descriptions can be improved to reflect this. Improving descriptions for spells that will be deleted anyway is just not a good idea. --Timenn < talk > 11:59, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

As Timenn said, it was not unexplained, it was not sudden, and it was not done without asking for people's feedback. It was done exactly the way that is recommended on the wiki (see Consensus, for example). If you have specific suggestions for how to continue improving the article, you are welcome to provide those suggestions. Which spells do you think need to be restored and why? What part of the reasons provided above for deleting that spell do you disagree with? How would you propose re-adding the spell or improving its description to address the problems brought up in its deletion proposal? That's the type of information that is useful and constructive feedback; generalized statements that you were surprised by the change don't help other editors work towards a consensus. --Nephele^Talk 12:40, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Prev: Archive 1

Up: Oblivion talk:Useful Spells

Next: Archive 3

UESPWiki β